|
The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on the bail pleas of four co-owners of a basement in connection with the tragic deaths of three IAS aspirants in Old Rajinder Nagar. The aspirants drowned after the basement became severely waterlogged.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, while reserving the decision, has asked the CBI to submit a status report addressing the primary causes of waterlogging in the area and the rainfall data from that day. Recently, the trial court denied bail to the four co-owners and said that the liability of the co-owners stemmed from their illegal act of allowing the basement to be used as a coaching institute. Their bail plea moved in Delhi High Court stated that the trial court failed to consider that the applicants were not named in the FIR. Additionally, the plea highlights that the co-owners voluntarily reported to the police station and cooperated with the investigation, demonstrating their bona fides despite not being called in by the investigating officer. Their plea further contends that the trial court overlooked the principle that vicarious liability does not apply in criminal jurisprudence. Their plea stated that strict criminal liability pertains only to the person who directly commits the criminal act, which, in their view, does not apply to the current applicants. In their earlier bail application, the accused argued that the tragic incident was caused by heavy rain, which they described as an "act of God." They also attributed part of the blame to the civic agency for the area's dysfunctional sewer system. Before the trial court, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is handling the case, stated that the basement was designated solely for storage, not for educational purposes. The agency claims that the accused were aware of the risks associated with operating a coaching centre in that space. The court also considered the testimony of a Karol Bagh resident, who had previously raised concerns about Rau's IAS running a classroom in the basement without permission. He had warned of a potential major accident a month before the incident. The court observed that the accused were aware that allowing the illegal use of the basement was endangering lives and that this illegal use was directly connected to the tragic event. (ANI)
|
